US Senate rejects bid to curb Trump's Iran war powers
The Republican-led US Senate rejected a Democratic-led bid on Friday to block President Donald Trump from using further military force against Iran, hours after the president said he would consider more bombing.
The Senate vote was 53 to 47 against a war powers resolution that would have required congressional approval for more hostilities against Iran. The vote was along party lines, except Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman voted no, with Republicans, and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul voted yes, with Democrats.
Senator Tim Kaine, chief sponsor of the resolution, has tried for years to wrest back Congress' authority to declare war from both Republican and Democratic presidents.
Kaine said his latest effort underscored that the US Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the sole power to declare war and requires that any hostility with Iran be explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of military force.
'If you think the president should have to come to Congress, whether you are for or against a war in Iran, you'll support Senate Joint Resolution 59, you'll support the Constitution that has stood the test of time,' Kaine said in a speech before the vote.
Lawmakers have been pushing for more information about weekend U.S. strikes on Iran, and the fate of Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium.
Earlier on Friday, Trump sharply criticized Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran, and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels.
He was reacting to Khamenei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids against Iranian nuclear sites.
Members of Trump's national security team held classified briefings on the strikes for the Senate and House of Representatives on Thursday and Friday. Many Democratic lawmakers left the briefings saying they had not been convinced that Iran's nuclear facilities had been 'obliterated,' as Trump announced shortly after the raid.
Opponents of the resolution said the strike on Iran was a single, limited operation within Trump's rights as commander-in-chief, not the start of sustained hostilities.
Senator Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican who served as ambassador to Japan during Trump's first term, said the measure could prevent any president from acting quickly against a country that has been a long-term adversary.
'We must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line,' Hagerty said before the vote.
Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to Iran's nuclear program was not as profound as he has said. Iran says its nuclear research is for civilian energy production.
Under US law, Senate war powers resolutions are privileged, meaning that the chamber had to promptly consider and vote on the measure, which Kaine introduced this month.
But to be enacted, the resolution would have had to pass the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson, a close Trump ally, said this week he did not think it was the right time for such an effort.
During Trump's first term, in 2020, Kaine introduced a similar resolution to rein in the Republican president's ability to wage war against Iran. That measure passed both the Senate and House of Representatives, with some Republican support, but did not garner enough votes to survive the president's veto.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
40 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Ravi Mishra on India's 2026 Delimitation Crisis
Published : Jun 28, 2025 15:00 IST - 7 MINS READ High-voltage political conflicts have become the gladiator sport of our times. More often than not, the underlying issues are entirely frivolous or made-up. On rare occasions, they are non-trivial. The upcoming exercise of delimitation of constituencies for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies (based on the first Census after 2026) is one such true conundrum that defies easy solutions. It also has two sides directly in conflict with each other with much to gain and lose; it is that rare issue that is real, complex, and extremely volatile which results in a ratings bonanza. As a consequence, we have not only had the predictable shouting matches and political campaigns, there have also been several scholars grappling with the underlying issue of late. Indeed, it raises serious questions of fairness regarding the raison d'être of the Indian Union. Most scholars who have explored the issue thus far have been political scientists or psephologists or others with a background in quantitative methods. A few lawyers have examined this issue as well. Scholars so far have looked at the problem as is, and have looked at its fairness versus unfairness implications—that is, the population of North India has grown exponentially faster than South India since the freezing of the delimitation exercise in 1976. The entire reason for the freeze was to ensure that this population divergence did not become a perverse incentive against the policy initiative on population control. Except, that is exactly what has happened and we are now in a pickle. Also Read | Delimitation: Facts, fears, and the future We have two bad options. The first is that we can punish success and reward failure by changing the current representation as the Constitution mandates it. This would rob southern India of its current representation edge, which it achieved through stabilising its population, and equalise that representation with North India which has not stabilised its population. The second is that we condemn much of North India to suffer the consequences of decades of bad governance of the past into the future as well, by retaining the current ratios of representation. In his latest book, Demography Representation Delimitation: The North-South Divide in India, Ravi K. Mishra attempts to bring in a historian's approach to the problem. His hypothesis is interesting. He argues that the starting point of using the 1971 Census data is incorrect and arbitrary. He argues that the populations of southern India grew much faster in the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, whereas the Indo-Gangetic plains did not grow as fast; he therefore suggests the late 20th century and early 21st century is when North India gets to grow fast again when the south does not. And therefore, his reasoning is that we should not punish north India for this cyclical nature of population growth. Demography Representation Delimitation: The North-South Divide in India Ravi K. Mishra Westland Non-Fiction Pages: 558 Price: Rs.999 The problem with Mishra's argument, however, is that he does not prove this cyclical nature of population growth with any certainty even though he spends two-thirds of the book on exactly that. It is here that one realises that using quantitative methods to drive a point forward is a skill. Mishra, who trained as a historian, seems to go in circles and does not quite land the argument. Mishra's analysis of population, population density, their movement thereof from decade to decade since 1871 is an exercise that adds little value. He starts by hand-wavy apportioning of certain populations to parts that now are in Bangladesh or Pakistan. This lack of rigour in handling data irks the reader trained in quantitative methods. Some important States, like Tamil Nadu, throw up data that run entirely counter to his argument. Tamil Nadu is also the State that has been the most vocal about delimitation in 2025. Yet, Mishra seems to completely ignore the implication of that. He uses regression analysis where a simple bar chart would have worked; and uses decade-by-decade explanatory analysis where a regression analysis would have added more value. So far, these are errors of omission. One can probably excuse Mishra because historians are not trained in regression analysis or in random processes. But what is inexcusable is how the analysis on fertility rate, the reason for population growth and its divergence, is entirely missing. That, even a sympathetic reader would think, is an error in bad faith. The population of a given place in the modern world, where death rates have stabilised and we no longer have famines, wars and plague, is driven by fertility rates. That is, how many children does each woman give birth to. And more importantly, this metric of total fertility rate (TFR) is perfectly correlated with the number of years of formal education that girl children get. And that is a metric of governance. For instance, if it is true that there is a cyclical nature to this population growth, why should we stop with one cycle going backward? Is it not likely that there were more? And if that is the case, what stops these cycles from being an infinite regress? If they indeed are, it only points to these societies—northern and southern India respectively—having rates of growth that are unlikely to converge for good in the future either. Which then means these societies are fundamentally distinct and therefore cannot be in a single political union where 'one person, one vote' is a foundational principle. The onus of proving this cycle is a 'once-in-the-history-of-mankind' event rests with Mishra. He gives no such proof. 'What do we do when we have two sets of societies in a single Union, each with a massively divergent TFR and different development trajectories? Especially when that TFR is driven by differences in access to school education for girls, which was a policy choice of these very societies. ' Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Telangana have achieved low TFR like every other society in the rest of the world has: by sending girls to school. This is true for societies as vastly different as Iran and Sri Lanka. What Mishra should have done is, taken the TFR of these States from 1947 through the current period and plotted them against the number of years of schooling that girl children got in each of them. That would have told him the truth: it does not matter what the base population is or what the population density was; what matters is whether the given State sent its girl children to school. That is why Tamil Nadu's TFR crashed in the decade after M.G. Ramachandran relaunched the mid-day meal scheme in 1982. That policy resulted in gender parity in terms of Gross Enrollment Ratio in schools which had the unintended consequence of a falling TFR. Also Read | Delimitation debate: Why southern States fear losing political voice after 2026 When it comes to looking at representation and delimitation, the question is not whether the representation index of people in North India is worse than those of South India. Or whether it has been worsening in the last 50 years when the delimitation exercise has been frozen. Mishra answers these questions after an analysis; but that is tautological. Of course it has been worsening. That is how arithmetic works. If we have the numerator as a constant and have the denominator increasing faster for one group as compared to the other, the group with the larger denominator is going to have a smaller index. The real question is: what do we do when we have two sets of societies in a single Union, each with a massively divergent TFR and different development trajectories? Especially when that TFR is driven by differences in access to school education for girls, which was a policy choice of these very societies. Mishra finishes the book without ever considering the question. One unintended consequence of Mishra's analysis is that he strengthens the idea of these various societies that constitute the Indian Union as being distinct and different in terms of their history and culture. And therefore their population growth trajectories are different. Their politics and policy choices, which affected the population growth, are also different. If we want to force them into a single political Union, we are going to have problems. We can either be fair to some and unfair to others or be unfair to everyone. If fairness to everyone is a yardstick, we have no option but to radically decentralise the Union. Nilakantan R.S. is a data scientist and the author of South vs North: India's Great Divide.
Mint
43 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump has struck trade deals with 2 countries ahead of July 9; what about the others? What is India's position?
As the July 9 deadline set by the Donald Trump administration approaches soon, officials have struggled to strike trade deals with a lot of countries. In almost three months, the US has been able to sign trade agreements with just two countries, with Trump and his officials hinting that a long pipeline is in place. Countries failing to strike deals with the US within the July 9 deadline will face tariffs as was announced by Trump in April. The President however on Friday indicated that the deadline could be moved forward. 'We can do whatever we want. We could extend it. We could make it shorter. I'd like to make it shorter. I'd like to just send letters out to everybody: Congratulations, you're paying 25 per cent,' he told reporters at the White House. Here's what you need to know about Donald Trump's trade deals. As of now, only two countries — China and UK — have signed trade deals with the US. 'The [Trump] administration and China agreed to an additional understanding for a framework to implement the Geneva agreement,' a White House official said on Thursday. That followed the talks in Geneva in May, where the US and China had agreed to reduce mutual tariffs. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg TV on Thursday that 'they [China] are going to deliver rare earths to us', and once Beijing does that 'we'll take down our countermeasures'. Trump signed an agreement on June 16, formally lowering some tariffs on imports from Britain as the countries continue working toward a formal trade deal. The deal, announced by Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Canada, reaffirmed quotas and tariff rates on British automobiles and eliminated tariffs on the U.K. aerospace sector, but the issue of steel and aluminum remains unresolved. While UK and China are the only countries that have signed trade deals with the US, Trump on Friday called off discussions with China, calling it a 'difficult country'. Trump abruptly ended the negotiations over its tax targeting US technology firms, saying that it was a "blatant attack" and that he would set a new tariff rate on Canadian goods within the next week. Majority of the trade partners of US, including South Korea, Vietnam and EU countries, are struggling to sign deals with America. Countries like France have rejected the notion of striking a deal that favours the US, and have proposed removal of tariffs altogether. Some EU member states have also rejected the idea of a tit-for-tat tarif, and are preferring a quick deal to a perfect one. India and Japan are considered to be the next countries that could strike trade deals with the US. 'But some of the bigger countries, India, I think we're going to reach a deal where we have the right to go in and trade. Right now, it's restricted. You can't walk in there. You can't even think about it,' Trump told reporters on Friday.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Punjab Congress leaders under vigilance scrutiny fear being targeted by AAP-led govt ahead of 2027 polls
CHANDIGARH: With 19 months left till the 2027 assembly elections, the Punjab Congress leadership is apprehensive that the current AAP-led Punjab government might target party leaders who are facing vigilance inquiries. Such concerns have been raised following the arrest of Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Majithia in a drugs and disproportionate assets case, while former Health Minister and AAP MLA Vijay Singla and his OSD Pradeep Kumar were given a clean chit in a corruption case registered against them in 2022. Sources said that a charge sheet has been filed in cases registered against former Congress MLA Kushaldeep Singh Dhillon and former cabinet minister OP Soni. Other Congress leaders who are facing vigilance inquiries include: Punjab Congress President and Member of Parliament from Ludhiana Amarinder Raja Warring, former Chief Minister and Member of Parliament from Jalandhar Charanjit Singh Channi, former cabinet ministers Sunder Shyam Arora and Vijay Inder Singla, and MLAs Barindemeet Singh Pahra and Pargat Singh. Channi, who himself is under the scrutiny of the vigilance, claimed that those politicians who are vocal against the government are being targeted by the AAP government. "They have already been after me for a long time, several party leaders, including Jalandhar (Cantonment) MLA Pargat Singh, were under the lens of the vigilance bureau. After Bikram Majithia, Pargat Singh might be next target of the government," he said. Ludhiana MP Warring said, "It would be premature to comment at this moment." On the other hand, Punjab Police has given a clean chit to former Health Minister and AAP MLA Vijay Singla and his OSD Pradeep Kumar in corruption case registered against them in 2022 at Phase 8 Police Station in Mohali. The state police have filed a closure report in a court in Mohali recently, citing that no conclusive evidence was found to proceed against the accused. The court will take up the matter on July 14. While thhe complainant in the case, Rajinder Singh, a government engineer on deputation with Punjab Health System Corporation, has agreed with the closure report. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had submitted that he was summoned to Punjab Bhawan, and a commission of one per cent was demanded from him. Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann had dismissed Singla from his cabinet.
